Was Shane Campbell wearing the blue-grey striped sweatshirt found off a Hanmer trail shortly after a roadside blueberry business – The Blueberry Shack – was robbed by a man wielding what appeared to be a hammer?

That was the crux of closing submissions Thursday by assistant Crown attorney Kenrick Abbott and defence lawyer Alex Toffoli in the third day of Campbell’s Ontario Court of Justice trial.

The trial is dealing with robbery and possession of a weapon charges laid concerning the 1:30 p.m. July 30, 2013, robbery during which saw the business’s float or cash box taken.

The charges were laid more than two years after the robbery due to the DNA profile generated from the sweatshirt matching a sample Campbell provided to the national DNA databank in 2015.

“It is the Crown’s respectful submission the reasonable conclusion is it was Mr. Campbell who wore the shirt that day,” said Abbott. “There is nothing to suggest otherwise.”

The trial heard the sweatshirt was found about five feet off the ground during a Greater Sudbury Police canine track in the bush near the robbery site. The sweatshirt, which was found to be inside out, was shown by officers to the female employee who was robbed, who indicated it matched what the male robber was wearing.

Genetic testing at the Centre of Forensic Science’s Northern Regional Forensic Laboratory in Sault Ste. Marie used blood found on a cuff area, as well as skin cells from inside the collar area to generate a DNA profile which two years later was matched Campbell.

The trial heard that only one DNA profile was generated from testing conducted on the sweatshirt.

The odds of another random, unrelated person matching the DNA profile, Michael Bissonnette, a forensic scientist at the Northern Regional Laboratory who testified Tuesday via videolink, was one in 170 trillion.

“Clearly, Mr. Campbell is the wearer of the shirt,” said Abbott. The DNA is his and nobody else’s. Is it possible somebody else had the shirt and left no DNA on that day? No.”

Toffoli, meanwhile, argued the female employee could not identify Campbell as the man who robbed her, either through two photograph lineups she examined, or during the trial.

“She is simply unable to identify him,” said the lawyer. “She could not identify him in the courtroom, even though it is obvious where he is sitting (prisoner’s box).”

Campbell, 33, of London, is in custody concerning unrelated matters.

Toffoli said only miniscule amounts of DNA were found on the sweatshirt and only two areas were checked for DNA.

“Are the facts suspicious?” he asked. “Yes. Are the facts highly suspicious? Yes. Does this equate to proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Based on the constellation of facts before you, I would suggest it’s unjust to convict Mr. Campbell.”

Abbott, in his reply submission, said the Crown had proved its case.

“When they check for DNA, they look for worn areas,” he said. “The positive identification of the shirt and the linking of the shirt to the scene are sufficient to create a nexus.”

Justice John Keast said he will need some time to prepare his decision as he ordered transcripts of the trial and submissions. A decision date, which will likely be in February, will be set next Tuesday.